SamPratt.com

Election Roundup for 2021

Local Turnout Plummets

In the 2020 Presidential election, a whopping 35,000 people came out to vote in Columbia County, with Biden winning handily. Data circulated this evening by the Board of Elections indicates that only about 20,000 voted this time around—meaning that 43% of those 2020 voters didn’t show up this time.

Voting is generally lower in local cycles compared with Presidential contests, but the precipitous drop suggests that there are many voters who only care about national politics. That’s something for both parties to work on, since in many ways local races affect our day-to-day lives far more substantially.

The full 2021 Columbia County unofficial results spreadsheet can be found here. These await the counting of absentee ballots, followed by official certification, and thus will change somewhat over time.

No Headway for Dems on Board of Supervisors

Despite a lot of big talk in the past month of a sweep which would take over the Board of Supervisors from Republicans, the Columbia Dems failed to make any progress toward that longterm, elusive goal. Dems lost key races for Super in four large towns (Claverack, Germantown, Ghent and Kinderhook).

In Taghkanic, two Democratic candidates for Town Board both won by a very large margin over the lone Republican opponent, 56% vs. 44%. Yet the Taghkanic Democrats, who enjoy a 4-1 majority there, allowed incumbent Republican Supervisor Ryan Skoda to run unopposed. So that Taghkanic seat would appear to be quite winnable by the Dems; but Town Board member Joyce Thompson has been instrumental in convincing them to leave the Republican Supervisor unchallenged.

In Stuyvesant, Democratic Committee officer Lee Jamison may have set some sort of record by losing yet again, having run repeatedly there over the past 20 decades. Other Supervisor races were uncontested, leaving the balance of power on the Board still firmly in the Republicans’ hands.

Meanwhile, the apparent winner of the Ghent Supervisor position, Craig Simmons, recently appeared in a social media video of a Chatham School Board meeting stating that he does not support vaccine mandates, much as he also “fought against helmet and seatbelt laws here in New York.” Simmons was formerly Chatham’s School Board President, but his nomination to be reappointed apparently received no second from any of his colleagues earlier this year. His term on the School Board expires in 2022, so presumably he will relinquish that position once his Ghent victory is certified.

A Taste of Tammany Hall in Ghent

Also in Ghent... The County Board of Elections decided to add a polling place due to shifts in the population, and chose the Ghent VFW as its extra venue. This raised some eyebrows among Ghent Dems, since the Post is traditionally used by the Republicans as their clubhouse, and also a site for GOP fundraisers.

It seemed an even odder choice given that another polling place, the Town Hall, is just a stone’s throw away, meaning it did not help many voters get closer to the polls. Other rejected suggestions had included a site closer to Hawthorne Valley, or another of the Town’s firehouses not already used for voting.

Of particular concern was the fact that the VFW Post has an active bar downstairs from the main space where the election was being conducted, including both an interior staircase from that room and an exterior entrance as well. This raised the specter of old-school Tammany-style politicking, which in the 19th Century often involved promising voters drinks as an inducement for voting.

That has not been alleged so far, let alone proven. But one Democratic poll watcher noted that the bar’s parking lot was very full in the afternoon and early evening of Election Day, and complained that a Republican inspector was telling some voters they could go downstairs for a beer after they finished.

(Note: This author also served as a poll watcher at the VFW in the early morning hours of Election Day... Much too early for a Budweiser.)

Krapf Holds his Own Party

According to Democratic committee sources, after beating incumbent David Bartlett, the party’s nominee for Sheriff decided to hold his own victory party, separate from the party’s event.

After besting Bartlett, Don Krapf reportedly held his own private (less “transparent”?) event in Hudson at the Power Boat Association, after briefly stopping by the Dems’ event in Chatham.

Krapf is a former Republican, who according to multiple sources voted twice for Trump and said voting for Hillary Clinton would be like voting for “the devil.” Sources have further indicated that his commitment to the platform advanced for him by the Dems is tepid at best.

Dem Committee members may consider this a win, but now seem stuck with a Sheriff with deep conservative roots. The party tends to be reluctant to abandon its own nominees, even if they prove problematic in office. Barring some major scandal, Krapf will now be likely to serve until retirement, unless eventually there were a Democratic primary—which could be bruising and vicious. This site will have some thoughts on the futures of both major parties in a future post.

Statewide Setbacks for Dems

One local Dem Committee member described last night’s results as “a bloodbath across the whole state, really” for the Democrats. Particularly disappointing was New York’s failure to approve ballot access referenda backed by the Dems. These would have loosened requirements absentee voters, as well as allowing same-day registration of new voters.

In better news, a referendum supporting stronger protections for clean air and water in the State did pass. But overall, results across New York suggested that Republican voters still fuming over the 2020 Presidential election were in a mood to strike back. There are national concerns that this foreshadows more trouble in the 2022 mid-terms, which are typically challenging for the party controlling the White House.

Hudson Results are Too Berserk to Parse

Meanwhile in Hudson, where Democrats have had a virtual lock on most offices going back 16 years to the hotly-contested Grandinetti-Tracy mayoral race, the results are so hard to comprehend as to defy analysis by an outside observer—even one with a lot of experience in Hudson politics.

Hudson has a remarkable number of positions: Three citywide offices (Mayor, Council President and Treasurer); 10 Common Council members, a/k/a Aldermen; and five County Supervisors. Sometimes, there are also primaries for Republican and Democratic Committee seats. In the above-mentioned 2005 contest, there were something approaching 50 candidates for various positions.

This time around, some key offices were uncontested, but the subject of (mostly) futile write-in campaigns. Other races involved candidates who had asked too late to be removed from the ballot, at least one of whom appears to have won. For more close-to-the-ground details, try reading coverage at Carole Osterink’s The Gossips of Rivertown.

Hudson seems to be becoming a textbook example of the perils of one-party rule—resulting either in a herd mentality among members of the same team, or else vicious infighting among elected officials and Committee members of the same party.

Multiple factions now exist among the Dems, each jealously defending its piece of the party pie. Despite sharing a party affiliation, there seems to be less not more cohesion and cooperation over time. It almost makes one nostalgic for a time when there were a few moderate Hudson Republican aldermen like Ed Thompson and Kathy Harter, with whom one could have open and reasonable discussions.

Election Day update, 4:30 pm

CORRECTED TO INCLUDE EARLY VOTING NUMBERS

According to data from the Columbia County Board of Elections, turnout seems somewhat light as of 4:30 pm on Election Day. Total turnout is a little over 11,600. Normally, one would expect a flood of voters once people get out of work—and no doubt the total will still increase substantially, though probably less than back in the day before early voting.

In the table below, this site has aggregated voters in traditionally right-leaning parties, left-leaning parties, and unaffiliated or independent parties. The tallies do not include absentee voters and their affiliations, but those tend to skew leftward.

Local anti-anti-vaxxers in the news

Heather Bellow has a long feature in Friday’s Berkshire Eagle about residents pushing back against the spread of anti-vaccine disinformation in Columbia and Berkshire Counties, especially as it relates to COVID.

The article includes extensive quotes from Chatham’s Michael Richardson, publisher of a local newsletter called Vaxx Facts; Columbia County Community Health Action co-founder Michael Seserman, who now works at the American Cancer Society; as well as this site’s writing on the topic. The article also quotes some academic sources, and several vaccine skeptics.

Did the Columbia Dems nominate a Trumper for County Sheriff?

Krapf vs. Bartlett described as ‘a Republican primary’

 

Democratic nominee for Columbia County Sheriff Don Krapf voted for Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020, according to three sources who had face-to-face conversations with him earlier this year.

According to one source, Krapf not only admitted voting twice for The Other Donald, but added that he couldn’t support Hillary Clinton in 2016 “because it would have been like voting for the Devil.”

“I wondered about his Trump leanings when I saw his orange campaign signs,” quipped one prominent Democrat who is supporting incumbent Republican David Bartlett for Sheriff, despite the County Democrats’ endorsement of Krapf.

Though Krapf’s campaign slogan is Transparency Creates Trust,* the candidate has refused to confirm or deny his alleged support for Trump, even when asked directly multiple times. Krapf also declined to participate in a telephone interview, asking that questions be submitted instead via Facebook messenger—then ignored all messaged questions.

This reporter finally cornered Krapf at a campaign event this month. But the Dem nominee again dodged the specific question of whether he had voted for Trump in either 2016 or 2020, or both, saying that national politics were not a part of his campaign. (Previously, this site had asked him how national politics could be excluded from a sheriff’s race, when issues crossing local and national boundaries such as ICE raids have been hotly-debated in recent years. Again, no response from the Transparent Candidate.)

“The County Democrats are basically funding a Republican primary in November,” said one party insider. “I don’t know why we couldn’t find an actual Democrat to run, especially since Bartlett seems vulnerable this cycle.”

Bartlett’s campaign has been dogged by the fallout from the savage beating of Harold Handy at the Kinderhook home of Sheriff Deputy Kelly Rosenstrach last year, while Bartlett’s surrogates have have hit back with allegations that Krapf was “disciplined for multiple domestic disturbances.”

Deputy Sheriff Don Krapf

Krapf’s former campaign manager, Sam Donnelly, also dodged the same Trump question shortly before he resigned over the summer. Donnelly was paid out of funds assigned to support the Democrats’ nominees, but was reportedly instructed by then-Dem chair Keith Kanaga to only focus on the Sheriff’s race.

Adding to credible suspicions that Krapf was a Trumper as recently as November 2020, he also declined to respond to the same question during interviews conducted by the Columbia County Democratic Committee. 

According to committee members present at the interviews, Krapf and his Republican incumbent opponent, David Bartlett were both asked about Trump. Bartlett reportedly stated definitively that he did not vote for Trump in 2020. But Krapf refused to answer the committee’s question, leading several present to infer that he had supported Trump—since there would be only upside to telling Democrats he hadn’t.

A number of County Dems further noted that Bartlett seemed much more informed and professional in his presentation to the Committee, while Krapf appeared unprepared and vague. Nevertheless, the committee gave their nod to Krapf. 

No debate has been held between the candidates in advance of Tuesday’s general election.

As of 2019, Krapf was a registered Republican. Donnelly indicated that the candidate intended to switch his registration to Independent after the November election, but not before. Current Board of Elections records indicated Krapf has switched to “NOP,” for No Party enrollment. 

Krapf has also indicated that if elected he would tap Jackie Salvatore, a retired State Police official, as undersheriff. Salvatore was a registered Conservative until recently, also switching to NOP.

Sheriff David Bartlett

The party’s NGP VAN (Voter Action Network) database, which rates voters as to how conservative or liberal they are, shows that Krapf actually has a slightly more right-leaning rating that his Republican opponent, Bartlett.

Meanwhile, two sources said that when speaking face-to-face with Krapf last Spring, he admitted that he not yet vaccinated. Donnelly claimed that on the advice of his doctor, Krapf was waiting to get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and eventually did so. This site knows of no reputable doctors who have advised patients to wait for the J&J vaccine over Pfizer or Moderna; indeed, the J&J vaccine has been widely considered the least effective of the three. 

One Democratic source claimed that Krapf was disinvited from a party fundraiser earlier this year due to a lack of vaccination, but believes he is probably vaccinated now. Krapf was maskless at the campaign event noted above, and maskless again when he cast his vote early in Hudson, according to one poll watcher who disapproved.

Any whiff of Trumpism among County Democratic nominees seems especially ironic, given party officials and committee members have harshly condemned any Democrat who has given even mild thanks or praise to local Republicans, let alone supported Trump. Indeed, even the slightest association with Republicans has been grounds for virtual excommunication from party affairs—except when it’s blessed by Democratic party officers. 

Krapf did answer one question: Why didn’t he seek the Republican nomination, since he had been a Republican for so long?

“I didn’t want to divide the party,” he said—meaning the Republican Party. That’s mighty considerate of a Democratic nominee, helping the Republicans to stay united.

Observers are left with a strong impression that the County Dem leadership was so desperate for a win, that they didn’t particularly care whether their nominee was cut from the same cloth as the GOP incumbent.

Krapf’s strategy appears to be to keep his head down, and offer only bland, general policy proposals, in hopes of garnering all the votes of rank-and-file Democrats unaware of his Republican background… while earning just enough GOP votes to put him over the top in a close race.

It might work; some political observers strongly believe that Bartlett has burned too many bridges to get re-elected. But what will the Dems have really accomplished, besides swapping out a law-and-order Republican for a conservative cop of their own?

Update: Since publishing this piece on Thursday, this site has received additional confirmation that Krapf indeed has said he voted for Trump in both of the last two Presidential elections.

 

 

---

* Oddly, Krapf’s slogan seems to have changed slightly over time. The sign in the photo atop this article, taken early in the campaign, says “Transparency Shows Honor.” Later, this morphed into “Transparency Creates Respect,” before settling on “Transparency Creates Trust.” Apparently transparency is transformable.

IMBY editor says 5G causes COVID

A recent report in The Atlantic explored anti-vaccine sentiment which is simmering in Berkshire and Columbia Counties—not among Trumpers and Qanon theorists, but among left-leaning residents.

Among those interviewed by Eoin Higgins (an investigative reporter who grew up in the Berkshires) was the editor/publisher of the community website IMBY.com, Enid Futterman. Astonishingly, Futterman tells Higgins that “she finds the idea that COVID is caused by 5G cellphone towers more believable than person-to-person transmission.”

The IMBY honcho continues:

I’ve read both sides, and that’s what makes sense.

Higgins further reports that Futterman “didn’t see ‘any disconnect between’ her support for progressive values and her embrace of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.”

A quick Google search turns up related comments by Futterman as well as former Columbia County Election Commissioner Virginia Martin, posted on an obscure news site called Who What Why. The pair’s comments were attached to a June 2021 article entitled “Alternative Treatments for COVID-19: A Non-Medical Review.”

As potential preventative measures or therapies to address the novel coronavirus, the article touts the potential of ivermectin, Vitamin C and Vitamin D, as well as medications intended for gout and asthma.

In their comments, Futterman and Martin heap praise in their comments on a group called the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC. Martin claims that FLCCC came up with “proven life-saving strategies” that were “rebuffed” by “legislators and public health authorities and medical institutions.” Futterman in turn opines that “as many as 85%” of lives could have been saved from COVID “if their findings hadn’t been suppressed.”

 

Baba and Corona

My great grandfather, Dr. Burrill Crohn, for whom the disease was named, was born in June 1884, and lived until July 1983. So unlike most children of my generation, I got to know a great-grandparent.

Today, thanks to modern medicine, getting to know a great-grandparent is a lot less rare.

“Baba,” as we called him, was considered a medical pioneer in two main respects: First, because he distinguished (what was eventually called) Crohn’s Disease from a host of other gastrointestinal ailments. Crohn’s was not just distinct, but required its own study and treatment.

Unfortunately, there is still no cure.

Secondly, he also was known for taking the mental state of a patient into account, far more than was usual for the time. He had observed that anxiety, stress and other agitations of the mind had a strong relation to people’s ability to cope with or overcome illness. 

We now take this approach for granted—some may even overemphasize it. But at the time, this too was rare.

Though a compassionate doctor, he also had a low tolerance for whining, exaggeration and other nonsense.

If one of us kids ran inside crying with a skinned knee, or some other complaint, 19 times out of 20 he would take a look then dismiss the parent with a wave: “There is nothing wrong with this child. Send him back out to play.”

............................

All this is a preamble to me imagining Dr. Crohn’s reaction to COVID deniers, mask-haters, and others who for one reason or another believe that the virus should be waved off like a trivial bruise.

89 years after he discovered it—invented it is the family joke, one corona skeptics may appreciate—there still is no solution for Crohn’s, only methods for minimizing or managing its chronic and debilitating symptoms. Few of these methods are very satisfactory. 

Had a cure for Crohn’s been discovered in Baba’s lifetime—something that might not fully resolve the disease, but would prevent 99.8% of sufferers from having to endure its torments—here’s what I would expect he’d do, just like millions of other doctors have done with COVID. Once he had examined the data, and a credible consensus had formed among his peers, he would have advocated strongly for the use of COVID vaccines, as well as a continued emphasis on masking, until it subsided. He would have told people to take great precautions, and social distance as much as possible.

I feel confident inferring his likely opinion not just because he was celebrated as diligent and objective researcher. Family  members have recounted how another relative nearly died as a child, but was saved after he directed her to a doctor who had recently found an experimental cure for meningitis.

I also expect that had he encountered any patient who refused the cure based on quack opinions, YouTube rants, political ideology, or some cussed insistence on “freedom” from the tyranny of expert advice, his compassion would have been sorely tested. From what I knew of him, he was given to kindly care, but also quite capable of giving a foolishly self-destructive ward a stern talking-to.

............................

Now: There are several people I know well, who I have collaborated with, and/or whose work I follow closely, and whom I still respect, but who have gone down the proverbial rabbit hole of anti-vaxxism, or worse.

My history with them as friends, mentors, artists, activists, skeptics or critics inclines me to consider their peculiar beliefs about COVID more seriously than such beliefs typically deserve. I have tried to consider their arguments sincerely, and see their points of view.

No dice.

Here’s the main logical leap many seem take—off the cliffs of selfishness, careerism, self-defeat, or just reflexive contrarianism.

Since (they say) our government, institutions, and industries have shown themselves before to be so corrupt, or so sloppy, or so lazy, or all three, therefore the pandemic itself must be fraudulent.

Problem is: Just because our elites do practice Disaster Capitalism does not mean that COVID is not real, and that urgent precautions should not be taken.

We should be able to hold these two disparate ideas in our minds: that the pandemic is a real and present danger, even as we question of the motivations and competence of powerfully opportunistic interests. Just because major mistakes have been made in the handling of the pandemic does not mean all such mistakes were deliberate. Never put down  to deviousness what can be explained by garden-variety incompetence.

Dr. Burrill B. Crohn, in his 60s

I fully agree that the United States government is highly untrustworthy; that the pharmaceutical industry is often predatory; and that our captains of industry will look at most any calamity and find an opportunity to buy low and later sell high. I also agree that various official responses have too often been misplaced, delayed, half-baked or botched. 

For instance: Anthony Fauci deliberately fibbed about the need for mask-wearing early in the pandemic, even as we were told to focus instead on hand sanitization. Correction, this was more than a fib, it was a stupid and damaging lie. One intended to preserve masks for hospitals, but which instead extended the pandemic, and filled up those same hospitals.

Fauci’s ad hoc dishonesty did much to undermine public trust in U.S. official guidance. All he accomplished was to give the paranoid more reason to ignore future mandates.

But Fauci is not the only doctor in our world, and the U.S. is not its only country. Virtually every other (non-quack) across the globe has strongly recommended the use of masks to contain the pandemic. It should been advocated earlier, and for a more sustained period, since the premature lifting of mask mandates has contributed to the development of new variants and helped prolong the crisis.

My own preference would have been for a 4-6 month “lockdown” early on, with the government guaranteeing a basic universal income and full health care during that period, so that the virus could be contained in a few months, and to squelch the emergence of variants. (If you think we couldn't have afforded it, take a look at the receipts for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.) This could have been over by the end of 2020; instead, we are back to levels of infection and hospital crowding from a year ago.

............................

Say COVID did begin, as some believe, as a top-down plot hatched by billionaires, enacted by the politicians who serve them, to further enslave people to drug makers, to institute more authoritarian restrictions on our movements and privacy, and to further impoverish people so their homes and jobs can be taken from them.

Why then are doctors in places like Cuba “going along” with the supposed plot by running dog capitalists? Isn’t Cuba known for defying American power, and having no allegiance to western corporations?

Likewise: why would our medical industry be calling for people to take measures that keep people out of hospitals, rather than denying the seriousness of the pandemic? 

After all, the profits from administering 5-second jabs are nothing compared to the astronomical billings related to hospital care. The equipment, testing, medication, and emergency measures necessary to try to save a single life incur hundreds of thousand of times  the billing for a hundreds of quick, simple injections by a CVS or Walgreens pharmacist.

Why would an exploitative capitalist system run by the 1% of the 1% want to squelch its own lifeblood: Tamping down travel, global shipping and supply chains, and the nonstop consumerism of billions of customers? Whatever has been allegedly gained by telling people to stay home, wear masks, and avoid getting sick is nothing compared to the profits which were reaped during the status quo ante. (Sure, Jeff Bezos is richer than ever… But that was already happening without COVID.)

If you care about your freedom, the very last thing you should do is expose yourself to unnecessary risk of hospitalization, let alone death. You may survive a long hospital stay, but a lifetime of insurmountable medical debt will truly enslave you. Not to mention the strong possibility of Long COVID complications, which for some reason are not considered as seriously as the infinitesimal risk of side effects from vaccines.

Really, it’s hardly worth getting into the weeds of such debates. My experience is that those who have already decided to minimize or deny the seriousness of such threats are all but impervious to facts and patient persuasion. It reminds me too much of folks I sometimes tried to reason with during the seven-year St. Lawrence Cement battle. You can patiently and methodically knock the legs out of each of their pat arguments and shallow slogans. Then they just shrug and change the topic to some other excuse for sticking with their original  “gut feeling.”

Much of this—in America, at least—seems to come down to a dimestore version of “personal” Freedom. But such rugged individualists rarely project any form of well-considered and principled libertarianism. They sound a lot more like tantrum-throwing children who don’t wanna take a bath, or demand ice cream for dinner.

Oldschool  libertarians used to cite the “swing-your-fist” test: My rights end where your nose begins. Now, these Sons of Liberty aren’t even willing to cover their noses to protect yours. Our concept of freedom has devolved into the right to sneeze on your neighbor’s face.

............................

Anyway.

I was indeed lucky to have known my great-grandfather, the accomplished Dr. Crohn. Even President Eisenhower had digestive problems, and asked for his services. With COVID, many kids born recently won’t get to know some of their parents and grandparents, let alone great-grandparents.

Today, I’m sure Baba would’ve had some tart things to say about COVID deniers, who place their solipsistic attachment to never being inconvenienced over the vast consensus of doctors—dedicated to data, and sworn to do no harm. Sure, there are a few bad and even dishonest doctors, as in all professions. That’s why we rely on scientific consensus, not a Series of One.

I never knew my other three great-grandfather. But I do have a hunch what one of them might have advised about this pandemic. My father’s grandfather was an engineer named Robert Winthrop Pratt, who among other things designed the waterworks and sewers of places like Cleveland and Havana. Some of the public infrastructure he created more than a century ago is still in use today. 

But in January 1920, at RYT age of 43, he came home from the hospital where he’d seen his newborn daughter Mary for the first time. He told his young son Lawrence that he wasn’t feeling so well, and closed himself in his bedroom.

Where he died of the Spanish Flu.

---

P.S.: I mentioned this to a COVID-denying friend—how I didn’t want to suffer the same fate as my ancestor. His all-too-predictable OAN-grade response was: “How can you be sure he really died of the Spanish Flu?”

Resistance is Temporary

 

The real reason why Trump makes people so furious? It’s not that his cruel, exploitative, ignorant and belligerent policies are so very different from those of the other Presidents of our lifetimes.

 

It’s that his crass, moronic and selfish personality has forced a previously-complacent majority of citizens to finally glimpse the longstanding nature of American government and society. The mask is both literally and figuratively off.

 

It’s important to that complacent majority to see Trump as an aberration, rather than someone who has finally put an appropriately hideous face on our country’s ugly politics.

 

Now: If we would just elect a grandfatherly figure like Biden to whisk the Orange Man off the stage, then centrist Democrats and Republicans alike can go back to ignoring the deep, institutionalized violence and rapaciousness of our society.

 

Nevermind that we’ll be going back to the same conditions which, under Clinton and Bush and Obama, caused so much hopelessness among Americans, that voters finally said: “What the hell... Let’s give a shot to a freakishly offensive gameshow host whose businesses keep going bankrupt.”

 

And if one points out that Biden has been embedded and complicit in the steady debasement of American government over the past 50 years—and who, by his own boast to Wall Street donors, will not change anything—this makes people doubly furious.

 

Because the most likely outcome is that we just put a blander, more personable face on the same old nightmare, and let those who are less touched by its viciousness to drift back to sleep.

 

One wouldn’t want to actually have to keep paying attention, stay involved, or, gosh forbid, do the hard work of demanding structural change after November.

 

Elect Biden so we can stop feeling we have to care, and not feel so guilty about it.

 

As we learned from the many who did not speak out when Obama killed innocent Middle Eastern kids with drone strikes, or prosecuted whistleblowers to the fullest extent of the law, or further expanded Homeland Security powers, or deported a record number of immigrants: These are only problems when the Evil Red party is in power.

 

Vote Biden/Harris, so we can get back to shopping and Netflix, and resume pretending that America has no kids in cages, no crushing poverty, no imperial colonizations of countless other countries most Americans can’t find on a map.

 

The standard, knee-jerk retort is that if you don’t vote for Biden, that’s because you must be privileged in some way. But the true “privilege” at work in this election is the desire to stop having to resist, and return to apathy.

 

—  |  —  |  —  |  —  |  —  |  —  |  —

 

After Biden is elected—and he will be elected, barring some colossal blunder on the debate stage, or some other medical meltdown—at least a third of Americans will remain one missed paycheck away from insolvency.

 

People will still not be able to afford their healthcare; and Pelosi and Schumer will invent a new set of excuses for why they can’t change that.

 

Much of people’s income, or all of it, will continue to go to rent, or credit card interest, or medical bills. It will still be the case that almost no one can save even a penny, because our whole economy is structured to create perpetual debt.

 

Bad cops will continue abusing and bashing and murdering innocent people, especially people of color. Our jails will stay full, and remain virtual plantations for private gain.

 

We will keep spending the bulk of our nation’s wealth on our decades-old undeclared wars, plus all the lesser-known proxy wars in those places where we are not yet ready to admit we are the aggressor.

 

We‘ll keep slaughtering people by drone, including children and even American citizens; and also giving governments like the Saudis or Israelis all the weapons necessary to wreck their own perceived enemies.

 

Our government will keep spying on its citizens, and persecuting whistleblowers who try to show the public what its leaders are really up to.

 

Big donors, especially corporate donors, will continue to have vastly more influence been 99.8% of Americans.

 

More tax breaks and deregulation will continue to make the rich richer; and they can keep throwing a few coins to charity now and then to deflect from our staggering wealth inequality.

 

We will continue to do nothing meaningful about the climate catastrophe now fully upon us.

 

Almost everyone will forget about protest, or engaging in (mostly impotent) organizing with the likes of Indivisible. Or going to local meetings. Or making whatever other gestures they hoped might dent the impending fascist dictatorship of Trump. Because, you know, there was nothing fascistic about the United States before he beat Hillary... Right?

 

Vote for Joe Biden, because the man at least knows how to modulate the tone of his voice properly, and to stick to his focus-grouped talking points... (At least, up until late afternoon.)

 

And that will give give the other 2/3rds, both Republican and Democrats, license to tune back out.

 

—  |  —  |  —  |  —  |  —  |  —  |  —

 

One of the favorite dodges of those who insist that we all must swallow hard and ignore Biden and Harris’s appalling records, is: “Look, first we just have to get rid of Trump.

 

“Then we can talk about all that other... stuff... after the election. Unlike Trump, we can work on Biden and Harris. We’ll push them to the left!”

 

This longtime activist honestly cannot think of a single time that a candidate on any level—local, county, state or federal—became more progressive once in office than they were on the campaign trail.

 

During a campaign, the general public is the candidate’s audience. The candidate needs their votes, or at least will pretend to need them. After the votes are cast, their audience shifts. It becomes their new colleagues. And those colleagues mainly want to ensure that the incoming class won’t rock the boat, and understands that they had better go along to get along. If they want to get anything but an office in the back of a basement closet.

 

If they don’t promise something explicitly during their campaign, sorry: it ain’t happening after they win.

 

And even when they do make explicit promises (ex: Obama vowing to get out of Iraq, or Guantanamo), it rarely happens once the old guard sits the newly-elected down in private and explains to them “how things really work.” 

 

Biden is, of course, the immensely proud author of the disastrous 1994 Crime Bill, and also claims covert credit for the Patriot Act—two of the main tools Trump is using to oppress protesters.

 

Biden has stated flatly that he could veto a Medicare for All bill if it hit his desk, dismissively adding that it’s a non-issue, because no such bill will ever reach said desk.

 

His history of blatantly racist remarks, bizarre reminiscences, and creepy fondling of women in public, can’t be ignored as just misleading right-wing email memes, as they are are readily verified on unedited, cringemaking video.

 

And again: Biden is on record reassuring his Wall Street donors that if elected, “Nothing will change.”

 

He can make those private pledges, because Biden can rest assured that the Blue No Matter Who crowd’s votes are in the bag. No need to make any concessions to “unify the party,” when everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Tulsi Gabbard to Bernie Sanders to AOC to even Cornel West and Noam Chomsky have pledged their fealty.

 

And that after the election, they will be too scared to criticize or challenge the Democratic establishment. If you speak out, you’re helping Trump come back—or someone even worse, if that is possible.

 

So: Assuming you gave been doing any of the following to “resist” Trump, here are some challenges to the self-described Resistance for after November:

• Will you continue to march for racial and social justice?
• Will you demand that Democrats in power pass Medicare for All?
• Will you keep writing irate letters to the editor about the state of our “nation”?
• Will you remember to go to local meetings, and lobby in your state capitol for change?
• Will you stay concerned about the plight of immigrants in our country?
• Will the government spying on you and me and everyone else continue to concern you?
• Will our illegal, undeclared and/or covert wars abroad occupy any of your attention?
• Will campaign finance reform be on your agenda?
• Will students loan debt, credit card debt, and other predatory lending practices still be on your radar? 
• Will you fight for at least a living minimum wage, if not universal basic income?
• Will you take tangible action to reverse global warming—before we all drown, fry, or kill each other to stay alive?

Or will you just be satisfied that Trump is gone, and just go back to the “normal” conditions which led to his election in the first place?

 

... And then insist four years from now that we all better swallow hard again and settle for lifelong prosecutor Kamala Harris, or whoever the DNC foists on us 2024 after Biden’s health presents a reëlection campaign. Because we wouldn’t want to go back to the bad old days of Trump, by criticizing or pressuring Democrats, now would we?

 

Even though those bad old days began long before Trump, and will hardly end the moment he most deservedly gets his comeuppance.

The Hudson Waterfront: Decades in the Making

 

Peter Jung and Sam Pratt of The Valley Alliance gave a presentation last night on the past and future of the Hudson Waterfront. The slides of the presentation can be viewed by clicking here. [large file, be patient!]

Pratt reviewed more than 40 years of citizen and official efforts to protect the Waterfront against threats such as an oil refinery, a toxic waste dump and a massive cement conveyor and barge operation.

These struggles, combined with City efforts (such as developing its Waterfront park, the Vision Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, et al.) have secured the opportunity for a healthier outcome which benefit a wide spectrum of Hudson residents.

Peter Jung focused on the promise the Waterfront still holds: the opportunity to deliver economic, social, cultural, recreational and conservation benefits to the whole Hudson community.

The Valley Alliance agrees with the findings of New York’s Secretary of State in 2005 that both the most jobs and the most enjoyment is to be had by creating a Waterfront where heavy, polluting industry does not prevent the success of parks, marinas, stores, restaurants, housing, entertainment, community gatherings and other mutually-compatible uses.

The presentation took place before the Hudson Planning Board, at the City’s central fire station on North 7th Street. Both of the two adjoining rooms were full, reflecting the widespread community concern about A. Colarusso & Sons’ plans to use the central piece of the Waterfront as a major gravel loading operation.

Dow bests Stamper for Dem Elections nod

By a weighted vote of 56%-42%, attorney Ken Dow secured the Columbia County Democratic Committee’s blessing tonight to serve as the party’s Elections Commissioner for the next two-year term.

After a reportedly contentious debate, Dow was selected by secret ballot over CCDC vice chair Erin Stamper.

Dow was understood to be principally backed by the Kinderhook, Claverack, Ghent and Hillsdake Democrats, while Stamper drew votes primarily from Hudson, Germantown, Stuyvesant and Austerlitz. Two other candidates came forward but garnered marginal support.

The recommendation of Dow now has to be approved by the Columbia County Board of Supervisors, which previously rejected the CDC’s renomination of incumbent Commissioner Virginia Martin. (The BOS has just recently made the Commissioner positions full-time, with nearly double the previous salary.)

Normally, the two major parties allow each other to select their elections reps unimpeded. But Martin had prior bad blood with the Republican majority— and also was closely associated along with her since-departed Republican counterpart, Jason Nastke, with the messy 2019 County election cycle, which was marked by confusion, faulty ballots and delayed results. 

Dow will be returning to a job he held more than a decade ago, prior to Martin, and as such has already been vetted and employed by the County Supervisors. Since that time, he has worked for the State Legislature as well as privately practicing municipal law.

Stamper has been employed in the #3 Democratic spot at the BOE since the abrupt departure last year of disgraced former Hudson Police Chief Jimmy Dolan, who had been unexpectedly hired by Martin. It is not clear whether Stamper will wish to continue to serve in that capacity under Dow.

Supes reject reappointment of Martin to elections job

Nastke also may be out as GOP Elections Commissioner if job becomes full-time

Republicans on the Columbia County Board of Supervisors joined with frustrated Democrats to vote down the reappointment of Virginia Martin, who had been narrowly recommended by the County Democratic Committee to serve another 2-year term as the party’s Elections Commissioner.

A motion was made from the floor by Hudson’s Sarah Sterling, seconded by Rick Scalera, to accept the CCDC’s recommendation. The motion was voted down, with 20 Supervisors voting no—including Sterling and Scalera—and three (Ancram’s Art Bassin, Chatham’s Maria Lull and Hillsdale’s Peter Cipkowski) voting for Martin. 

According to a source close to many Supervisors, Martin was given the option to resign rather than have this vote occur, but did not take it.

Martin

Meanwhile, Republican Commissioner Jason Nastke is said to be uninterested in returning to the Board of Elections if Supervisors intend to make the top two jobs full-time, as has been persistently rumored. Gallatin Supervisor John Reilly mentioned his belief there’s a need to “restructure the whole board.”

Nastke, who has served part-time, also does title insurance work which has led to complaints of the former Valatie mayor seldom being in the office, and not giving adequate direction to Board staff. While the change to full-time provides cover for his exit, sources indicate that some Republicans appear eager to have Nastke take this way out without a fight like the one surrounding Martin.

Both Martin and Nastke have each held their posts for roughly a decade. However, despite their experience, the 2019 local elections were plagued by numerous delays and complications, along with a persistent infestation of fleas which caused a disruptive move of offices this Fall. (See this link for this site’s many reports on those issues, some of which have still not come fully to light.)

Martin actually had lost the initial Democratic Committee vote to its vice chair, Erin Stamper, who filled in briefly at the Elections Board in the final stretches of the 2019 election cycle, after Martin abruptly and mysteriously parted ways with staffer James J. “Jimmy” Dolan. However, with four candidates vying for the post, Stamper did not win a majority of weighted votes on the first ballot. On the second ballot, several people changed their vote, giving Martin a very slim margin of victory to become the Democrats’ recommended candidate.

Stamper’s candidacy, which has opened a schism among County Dems, was pushed heavily by CCDC chair Keith Kanaga, along with Sterling, whose daughter Mara Estribou formerly worked under Martin at the Board.

:    :    :    :    :    :

So what happens now? It doesn’t appear there will be any quick closure, since the Board of Supervisors does not have any apparent right to chose a candidate of their own. The Supervisors’ rules for appointing Election Commissioners are recondite; some confusion has arisen among the members on how exactly they are to be applied.

Nastke

According to a memo circulated in the past week by BOS attorney Rob Fitzsimmons, if Supervisors reject a party committee’s suggested Commissioner candidate, and the Democratic caucus also votes that person down, the party committee then gets a second chance to make a suggestion—but it must be someone different. (In other words, the CCDC can’t say, “we still want Martin.”)

If that second suggestion is also not approved, it appears that the choice then moves from the CCDC back to the Democratic caucus of the Board of Supervisors, which is made up of Democratic public officials, rather than Dem Committee members.

Indications are that the Democratic Supervisors—dominated by members from Hudson‘s five wards—have been eager to move on from Martin, and made common cause with GOP members to ensure her rejection. Bassin has continued to support Martin behind the scenes, mostly on the basis that he preferred to maintain some continuity at the Board of Elections.

Whether the Supers would approve the nomination of Stamper is unclear, but seems likely. However, it’s possible that with Martin out of the picture, one of these bodies might entertain other ideas—and other candidates might get in line.

Asked whether the CCDC would consider a wider field of candidates, now that Martin has been rejected, Democratic Chair Kanaga seemed surprised at the idea, and was reluctant to say if he would reopen the search for candidates.

 

Chatham resigns

An hour after blowing his top for the third consecutive Hudson Planning Board meeting, chair Walter Chatham submitter a letter of resignation via email to sitting Mayor Rick Rector and incoming Mayor Kamal Johnson. 

A copy of the email obtained by this site reads:

Dear Planning Board and Mayor Elect- In anticipation of a new Administration and a fresh point of view, I have submitted my resignation from the Planning Board to Mayor Rector.

Thank you all for your help and collaboration; I wish those of you staying on the Board great success in your future dealings on behalf of the City.

I look forward to staying in touch with you all and hope to be before you with my own planning proposals in the future.

All The Best,

Walter

Walter Chatham
[email protected]

During Tuesday night’s public hearing on the Colarusso application for the Waterfront, Hudson resident Chris McManus spoke up to suggest that the Board defer a working session with the applicant to the New Year, when Johnson is expected to make some new appointments to the Board.

Chatham suddenly and loudly exclaimed, “Stop it! You’re really pissing me off!”

After some consternation and back and forth, Chatham apologized for losing what he has termed at previous meetings as “my chill.”

At the two previous meetings, Chatham similarly blew up — then apologized to — this writer. One such occasion, Chatham yelled “Are you kidding me?” after it was pointed out that a crucial vote he claimed had already happened had not, in fact, been taken yet.

Only a check of the minutes by Board Secretary Linda Fenoff settled Chatham down, leading to a sheepish apology.

Chatham did not acknowledge this or previous episodes as contributing to his decision to resign shortly after the close of the meeting.

A month later, Election Board finally posts some real results

As of noon yesterday—a full month after Election Day—the Columbia County Board of Elections still was showing incomplete and outdated results of the November 5th election. A nudge from this site appears to have changed that.

Since the mess of Election Day and the ensuing weeks of confusion, the Board had recanvassed and counted many additional results, along with those gathered from early tallies. But strangely, the BOE had not added these to tallies to publicly-released numbers.

As of midday on December 3rd, its site had not been updated since November 21st. Those incomplete. results showed several candidates losing, who had since been known to have won. Considering the many mistakes, omissions, and errors which have plagued the Board this cycle, it seemed all the more odd that it would not have rushed to correct these numbers.

This site messaged the two Election Commissioners, Democrat Virginia Martin and Republican Jason Nastke, asking why results were still incomplete—and when totals for each candidate would be included, so that the public could easily see who had won or lost. (Other Boards present results in clear, and sometimes even graphical form; the CC BOE is still using very old spreadsheet technology, and seems to struggle to publish results to the web.)

The courtesy of a response was not received from either Commissioner. But lo and behold! by 3:30 pm, the Board had suddenly updated the numbers to what appear to be near-final results.

Town results appear at this link; Countywide results are at this one.

It had also, finally, provided totals for each candidate, so that visitors did not need to do the math from multiple party lines to understand them. In several cases, the winners of the election had reversed since November 21st.

CAVEAT: One candidate who has been watching the results closely says that some of the Board’s numbers are very slightly off by 2 or 3 votes—appearing to not include some emergency ballot results.